Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Azizad

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 17
• Sacramento 11
• Marina del Rey 8
• Los Angeles 5
• San Francisco 4
• Santa Ana 4
• Oakland 3
• Pomona 3
• Salinas 3
• San Diego 3
• San Jose 3
• Santa Rosa 3

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 43 for the defense
• 26 for the applicant
• 10 returned for more record

Counted over 73 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ13021836 · 2026-06-03 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted the Petition for Reconsideration by defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period. In Case No. ADJ20509813, the WCJ found that applicant sustained

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to the excretory and reproductive systems during various employment periods, but the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ decision and returned the matter for further proceedings on settlement approval.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19203396 · 2026-05-29 · San Jose District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order, October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)

  The Court found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review and remanded for supplemental attorney's fees to applicant and her counsel, which the Board awarded as stipulated by the parties.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ9477566 · 2026-05-28 · Santa Ana District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, the supplemental briefing, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the F&O and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, because we conclude that (1) section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply to the claim, but that (2) the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, a necessary factual predicate to application of those subdivisions.

  The Board concluded that section 3600.5 subdivisions (c) and (d) potentially apply, but the record requires further development to determine the proper period of applicant's professional career, which is necessary to apply those subdivisions.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ19191631 · 2026-03-19 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8Applicant's unrebutted credible testimony established that she worked for Avellino Labs USA. Avellino Labs USA was her employer at the time of injury. Defendants failed to rebut the Labor Code section 3357 presumption of employment. Defendants presented no evidence or witnesses on the issue. Whether or not applicant had a general and special employer at the time of injury is deferred. Applicant acknowledged being paid by Gava Talent Solutions.

  The WCJ found applicant was employed by Avellino based on credible testimony and evidence, and defendants failed to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code section 3357. The Appeals Board affirmed this finding and amended the F&A to clarify the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under Labor Code section 3600.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ14926383 · 2025-12-19 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on October 6, 2025 wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) held, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a janitor on July 24, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the lumbar spine and right shoulder resulting in a 78% permanent disability, plus a life pension thereafter, per the opinions of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Nathan Morello, D.C.

  The WCJ and WCAB found substantial medical evidence from Dr. Morello supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and right shoulder.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17888964 · 2025-12-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeSubstantial evidence / credibilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial

  The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion was supported by substantial evidence, including adequate examination, history, and reasoning, and was not speculative or erroneous, so the medical evidence was upheld.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ16933451 · 2025-11-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Applicant sustained injury to his left eye when one or more welding sparks entered his left eye on July 19, 2022. According to applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony (12/26/2024 MOH; pages 3-4):

  The Board found credible and unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting that the applicant sustained a high velocity eye injury as defined by the statute, entitling him to extended temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13021836 · 2025-09-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Security National Insurance Company (Security National) seeks reconsideration of the June 2, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, in Case No. ADJ13022571, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed on July 26, 2015, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National Insurance Company. The WCJ also found that Great American Insurance Company (Great American), Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), and Employers Assurance (Employers Assurance) do not have coverage in this case and dismissed them. In Case No. ADJ20509785, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her excretory system and reproductive system, while employed during the period July 26, 2015 to January 5, 2016, by Palmdale Lodging Associates, insured by Security National from April 25, 2015 to August 21, 2015 and by Employers Assurance from August 6, 2018 to August 6, 2019. The WCJ also found that the Labor Code1 section 5412 date of injury is May 1, 2024 and that Great American and Zurich do not have coverage in the last year of the continuous trauma period.

  The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to applicant's excretory and reproductive systems for specific and cumulative trauma periods, supported by credible testimony and medical evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently explained and granted reconsideration for further review.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13465387 · 2025-08-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3In this case, John Lavorgna, M.D., served as the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), and his opinions provided the sole medical evidence submitted by the parties. We presume that the AME was chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality, and that his opinions should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find those opinions unpersuasive. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114, 117].) In his report dated December 17, 2020, the AME determined that applicant had reached Maximal Medical Improvement and assigned Whole Person Impairment percentages for applicant's cervical spine (8 percent for a Cervical Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate according to The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition), lumbar spine (8 percent for a Lumbar Category II Diagnosis-Related Estimate per the AMA Guides), left shoulder (16 percent whole person impairment), and left hip (20 percent for full-time use of a cane and moderately severe gait derangement). (Joint Exhibit 101, Report of AME John Lavorgna, M.D., dated December 17, 2020, page 10, paragraphs 3-6.) The AME apportioned 100 percent of these impairments to applicant's industrial injury of June 23, 2018. (Id.)

  The AME's medical opinions and vocational experts' reports support a finding of 100% permanent total disability due to severe work restrictions and loss of earning capacity.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ8102669 · 2025-07-01 · Van Nuys District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Based on the foregoing, we concur with the WCJ's determination that Drs. Hirsch and Fink have identified multiple preexisting nonindustrial factors as causative of applicant's current permanent disability. However, because neither the regular physician nor the QME offers an explanation of how they identified the extent to which each of those factors contributed to present permanent disability, expressed as an approximate percentage, the apportionment analysis is incomplete and cannot be adopted. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 647 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] [Appeals Board may not rely on an apportionment opinion expressed as a mere legal conclusion].)

  The WCAB found that the apportionment analysis by Drs. Hirsch and Fink was incomplete and lacked explanation on how percentages were assigned, thus not substantial evidence to support apportionment.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ6840627 · 2025-03-17 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRremanded

  Determinative passage · p.6Turning to defendant's argument that the WCJ erroneously found that applicant was entitled to reimbursement for self-procured chiropractic treatment because the treatment was not authorized under Utilization Review, we note that the parties raised the issue of "[l]iability for self-procured medical treatment" without reference to Utilization Review and without submitting Utilization Review documents for admission in evidence. It is thus unclear whether a Request for Authorization (RFA) was submitted and, if so, whether defendant reserved its right to retrospective Utilization Review by issuing a written decision complying with AD Rule 9792.9(b)(1). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.9(b)(1).) Hence, we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of this issue.

  The Appeals Board found unclear whether Utilization Review was properly followed and deferred final decision for further review.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ10053711 · 2025-02-24 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.243. Request to Modify the PD Award based on Dr. Greenspan As explained above and in the November 25, 2024 opinion on decision, the findings and award contained in the August 30, 2022 Third Amended Findings and Award are now final, and will not be modified or reopened based on a revisiting of previously-admitted or available evidence, While that finality does not serve to negate the provisions of the final findings and award that ce1iain credits were to be adjusted by and between the parties and applied to the award of temporary disability benefits, it does mean that the award cannot be modified with respect to the underlying determination of permanent disability based upon one physician over another, in this case Dr. Newton over Dr. Greenspan. To alter or amend the now-final findings and award more than five years after the date of injury would violate Labor Code § 5804, which states that "[n]o award of compensation shall be rescinded, altered, or amended after five years from the date of the injury except upon a petition by a party in interest filed within such five years and any counterpetition seeking other relief filed by the adverse party within 30 days of the original petition raising issues in addition to those raised by such original petition."

  The panel held that the permanent disability award based on Dr. Newton's opinion is final and cannot be modified or reopened, denying the request to replace it with Dr. Greenspan's opinion.

  Official decision · page 24 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 19.

• LLARENA, MURDOCK, LOPEZ & AZIZAD
• LLARENA, MURDOCK, LOPEZ & AZIZAD, APC
• LLARENA MURDOCK LOPEZ & AZIZAD
• Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Azizad
• LLARENA MURDOCK
• Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Azizad, APC
• LLARENA MURDOCK LOPEZ & AZIZAD, APC
• LLARENA MURDOCK LOPEZ & AZIZAD APC
• LAW OFFICES OF LLARENA, MURDOCK, LOPEZ & AZIZAD
• LLARENA, MURDOCK, LOPEZ AND AZIZAD, APC
• LLARENA MURDOCK LOPEZ & MOTSCHENBACHER
• Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Azizad APC

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.